93 then beaten by civilians while the escorting guards, far from protecting them, fostered the assault and took part in the beating. When the airmen reached the city hall one was shot and killed by a German soldier, followed by the others a few minutes later, all shot by German soldiers. The accused included a few senior officers, some privates, the mayor of Borkum, some policemen, a civilian and the leader of the Reich Labour Corps. All were charged with war crimes, in particular both with “wilfully, deliberately and wrongfully encourag[ing], aid [ing], abett[ing] and participat[ing] in the killing” of the airmen and with “wilfully, deliberately and wrongfully encourag[ing], aid[ing], abett[ing] and participat[ing] in assaults upon” the airmen. 261 In his opening statement the Prosecutor developed the doctrine of common design. He stated the following: [I]t is important, as I see it, to determine the guilt of each of these accused in the light of the particular role that each one played. They did not all participate in exactly the same manner. Members of mobs seldom do. One will undertake one special or particular action and another will perform another particular action. It is the composite of the actions of all that results in the commission of the crime. Now, all legal authorities agree that where a common design of a mob exists and the mob has carried out its purpose, then no distinction can be drawn between the finger man and the trigger man (sic). No distinction is drawn between the one who, by his acts, caused the victims to be subjected to the pleasure of the mob or the one who incited the mob, or the ones who dealt the fatal blows. This rule of law and common sense must, of necessity, be so. Otherwise, many of the true instigators of crime would never be punished. Who can tell which particular act was the most responsible for the final shooting of these flyers? Can it not be truly said that any one of the acts of any one of these accused may have been the very act that produced the ultimate result? Although the ultimate act might have been something in which the former actor did not directly participate [, e]very time a member of a mob takes any action that is inclined to encourage, that is inclined to give heart to someone else who is present, to participate, then that person has lent his aid to the accomplishment of the final result.262 In short, noted the Prosecutor, the accused were “cogs in the wheel of common design, all equally important, each cog doing the part assigned to it. And the wheel of wholesale murder could not turn without all the cogs”. 263 As a consequence, according to the Prosecutor, if it were proved beyond a reasonable doubt “that each one of these accused what was meant by the word 'murder’ for the purposes of this trial, [there …] was ?nog difficulty” (ibid., pp. 91-92). 261 See Charge Sheet, in U.S. National Archives Microfilm Publications, I (on file with the International Tribunal’s Library). 262 Ibid., p. 1186 (emphasis added). See also p. 1187. 263 Ibid., p. 1188. See, further note 240 and accompanying text, with regard to the comments made regarding causation in the Ponzano case. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999